*Feminism IS Population Control*

Post Reply New Topic

pandd, you didn't grasp anything I said. You misinterpret my words to fit your need.

Your natural role may be different then what nature has intended for the majority. Be honest with yourself and look around. In nature, males usually are the dominant ones who serve to protect women and children. Females need to respect this more rather than try to be like them because you perceive it as a higher role. It is just different. If you want to go live by yourself and not have children, fine. There is nothing stopping you. However, when a huge moment like modern feminism forces women to work and neglect their children just so they can get by, that is not healthy for children. Feminism may have started as a great revolution, but now it is just an ego driven movement that deprives women of our intrinsic value, we are now a bunch of working machines.

As for your insulting me about a lack of knowledge in history, well that was rude and hostile and also very ignorant because you didn't read my post correctly. Ancient Greece revered women. The fact that they worshiped goddesses is telling about their culture. Even though men were in power, so what? Why does that make you jealous?

I clearly stated the difference between the two species of chimps and you chopped my words to make me look dumb.

You also misunderstood my analogy about men acting like women. A priest wearing a robe is nothing like a role reversal in dress.

Submission is not bad. Not everyone could or should be leaders but capitalism has brainwashed people into believing they have to be number one.

Don't take the exception as the rule. Sure some women are like men and some men are like women. We all have male and female sides.
I said before that it is ideal for us to cultivate both sides to be fully rounded. I don't expect pandd to understand the yin/yang philosophy though.

What about people who submit to others because they choose to?

What about wu-wei and yin-yang?

There are two types of feminists. Those who rightly demand equality and respect, and the annoying type who are like, "OMG, you're wearing mascara, you're undermining women!" The former type have my utmost support. It is the latter type to whom I direct this:

Capitalism and industrialism were only two of the factors cited. The industrial revolution is a very important factor in the existence of feminism. What do you think first started pulling females out of the domestic sphere? The transition from cottage industry to factory production is a crucial factor in feminism for the reason that it bought females out of the domestic sphere.

The industrial revolution is directly causal of a massive increase in literacy and education. Consider the availability of reading materials after the printing press became widely used, as to when all books had to be copied by hand. Do you honestly believe a more educated and literate population are not more likely to initiate cultural innovations than one where written material and literate persons are restricted to the upper echelons of power? Do you really think that innovations that detract from the power of ruling elites/social superiors are as likely when the only educated and literate members of society are those who benefit from the status quo?

As for the body of ideas you describe feminism as being, they are continuous with other such ideas arising and being applied in Europe at the time. All kinds of new freedoms were being envisioned and enacted. Feminism is in part responsive to these changes, and responsive to the same causal factors (of the things that it was partially responsive to).
Without any consideration to population growth, feminism seems utterly unlikely to not have arisen in the context. It's success or not might be less predictable, but the positing of female equality is entirely consistent with historical trends of the time.

I note that in your response you completely ignored changing attitudes and social structures as pertains to religion.



I do not believe in such, but even given the truth of this hypothetical intelligent system working in mysterious ways, I do not find your suggestion re feminism being a subliminal attempt to initiate population control as very likely. This seems a completely unnecessary explanation given the historical context in which feminism arose and developed.

Not a result that anyone intended when they initiated feminism. The relationship is akin to the development of x-rays within medicine. X-rays are a bi-product of medical advancement, not a target goal.
As for China, someone in the thread mentioned it somewhere...I think....if you do not recall doing so, then probably I have misremembered who.


Precisely my point. People are more apt to use things they know something of, and people tend to know much more about much more when literate and educated. To compare, the birth rate does not correlate so well to increased literacy that occurred in societies prior to the advent of readily available birth control.
If capitalism and industrialisation are partially causal of feminism then the above statement makes no sense. Furthermore, regardless whether or how feminists campaigned, if the technology or economic structures were not in place such that the advent of pharmaceutical commercial birth control was possible, then it would not have happened.

Yes they do. Do you honestly believe that the majority of Indian people believe women are equal to men and should have equal rights? I know this is simply not the case.

Right, and why would these campaigns against factory conditions occur if there were no factories? See how important industrialisation was. Evidently, a beneficial circumstance to these campaigns was the increasing urbanization of the population (gathered around industrial centres as the economy transitioned from predominately agricultural to industrial).

No one is talking about the neolithic, and you go further than pointing to a possible role for feminism in reducing population growth rates, you state the latter as the point of feminism (at least subliminally). I find this needless because feminism seems over-whelmingly likely to occur in the historical context. It makes no more sense to single out this particular social trend as being some subliminal attempt to achieve population control, than it does any other social trend that could be implicated in reduced population growth.

what is "spinster mentality"?

Is what a good thing?

What are you babbling about? I have companionship, my romantic/life partner of in excess of a decade is sitting across the table from me as I type. Unless you imagine being relegated to second class citizen status is somehow a turn on for females I do not see the connection to feminism and increased frigidity, (quite the contrary).

Does the idea of yourself being second class by virtue of your sex turn you on?


It did not kill chivalry. Chivalry as a social force, was primarily social propaganda and idealism. It had a purpose particular to its time and context and both these things passed well before feminism became a major social force. Of course if by chivalry you do not mean actual chivalry, but rather are using the word to refer to general politeness, feminism is not preventing you or anyone else from being polite.


No it is not. But given your earlier comments, in your view someone has to be on the bottom and the best we can achieve is harmony, so why not harmoniously settle into your (as you apparently view it) inferior role as a male, or is your keenness for inequality for harmony's sake really just a euphemistic means of arguing for male dominance?

If as you state someone must be in the inferior position (inevitable if there is not equality) then the fact that it might be males will not bother you at all. Or is the suggestion only viable when your sex gets the cream and utterly untenable when it is suggested that your own entire sex should be relegated to second class? If females had been dominant and males were seeking equality, would you be so keen to role back any progress and settle for second-classness just for the sake of harmony (and perhaps freedom from frigidity)?


No-thanks for worse than nothing. If I've done nothing for you, at least I have not campaigned to have your entire sex (and you with it) relegated to second class status.

You are wasting your time in ascribing motivation to me since I am more likely to believe my own opinion as to my motivation than your opinion as to the same. If you believe I have misinterpreted, I can consider that, but I know that 'need' did have any bearing on my interpretation so you've no chance of convincing me otherwise on that particular count.

I do not see how that can be since nature is not an entity characterized by the capacity to form (or exercise) intent.


I know of nothing outside of nature. I do not consider 'trends' that occur in and of themselves determinative of what should occur.

If you mean 'need' (rather than you personally would prefer or would be more comfortable with), then you can describe the needed benefit that would accrue to females by doing as you state they need to do, or the unacceptable cost to females that would occur if they do not do as you suggest they need to.
Additionally you might choose to explain what 'trying to be like males' has to do with feminism, since feminism does not necessarily imply anyone should be like anyone. Feminism's central and one consistent tenet is that females are of equal worth to males and should have equal status and rights accordingly. This does not suggest or even imply that females should be like or try to be like males.


Inequality is not just different, it is unequal.


Because of feminism. Equally if I want to go off with someone else, form a loving bond, cooperate together to bring into being a new family unit, complete with lovely little young'ins, feminism is not preventing that. Without feminism, the freedom to do what you agree I am currently free to do would not exist, with feminism, both choices are viable and permissible.

Feminism has not forced women to work and neglect their children just so they can get by.

What a load of bollocks. It is astounding that one can posit some other group should submit to their group, should be unequal (and inferior), while claiming that a contrary ideal in which everyone is equal is ego driven and devaluing of the group you believe should submit to your own. Talk about self-serving sophistry.


If you wish to perceive it as rude and hostile, that's your choice. Many might think your blanket call for their submission and inequality is rude and not exactly friendly.
Women were unequal and inferior in ancient Greece, homosexuality was socially valued above male to female relationships. The fact is your notion that feminism is a cause of homosexuality is utterly inane. As is your notion that female goddesses somehow proves reverence of females.


What has jealousy got to do with anything? You posited a premise that requires either that there not have been rampant homosexuality in ancient Greece, or that ancient Greece was a hot-spot of feminism and/or female equality. I posted comments that posit that neither of these conditions are met (and hence your premise is factually incorrect). Whatever has jealously got to do with any of that?


No I did not. As described earlier, you've no chance of convincing me that my intention was or is something other than what I know it to be.
The rules of the forum as I understand them is that unnecessary quoting should be avoided. The comments you refer to were not relevant in that given their truth, the fact remains that the two species are equally genetically related to us, bonobos better resemble us in sexual conduct, and that the alpha in their groups is a female, and the alpha male dependent on her favour for his position.

You made a statement about men wearing dresses being a possible result or risk of feminism when in fact men have worn such garb in the absence of feminism and in very male-centric societies. You further referred to tasks that feminism risked males being involved in (or more involved in) yet in many societies where there is no feminist movement, the male role does incorporate such tasks none the less.

Fine and well, I will not stand in the way of you submitting then.

Are you sure feminism did not do this too? Or maybe the emancipation of slaves? Why not blame Martin Luther? Hey, why not give Lex Luther the blame, perhaps then Superman will come to the rescue.

It isn't gender equality you want, it's gender reversal. Feminizing men and masculinizing women. Why is it that when women claim to hate men, they end up becoming more like men?

Slowmutant, this is why Lilith was expelled from paradise, because she was the first human feminist, that was outrageous to the eyes of God, He decided to give humanity another chance by creating Eve from Adam's rib this time.

So would you agree that capitalism, industrialisation/new technology, political/philosophical thought in Europe, and the destabilisation of religion, all contributed to measures which wherever they spread to, or were applied, have turned out to be the most effective brakes on population growth rates, ( other than war or disease )? ie. women's control over their own bodies and thus of reproduction.


Do you have figures for that?


From the book "The Moral Property of Women"


No. I'm not sure that's the case even in many supposedly developed/industrialised countries.


Just because it seems unlikely not to have occurred given the situation, ( which is in fact exactly my point ), does not mean that feminist demands were not, are not, the system's own check on population growth rates, which were inherent in the changes themselves, ( whether technological, economic/financial, religious, etc), right from the start.

.

Either you didn't read my post or didn't understand it. I didn't say that there was not rampant homosexuality in ancient Greece. Females didn't seek equality with males because they served different roles and appreciated one another.

Also, humans resemble the common chimp much more so than the bonobo. Bonobos aren't as matriarchal as once believed. The females use sex to subdue male aggression. They submit to the males. The culture is much more harmonious than the common chimp who adhere to a hierarchy under the alpha male. They engage in war which is more like humans and also hunt. Bonobos do not hunt nor are they interested in the social structure of hierarchy. Bonobos are also bisexual. Common chimps rarely engage in homosexual sex because it is tabboo with them just like incest.
When they do engage in the act it is fast and sort of violent.

Reading through this I won't waste my time debating each detail but it seems to me some of this femenism is something many of us females were innately born with.

I have never heard of such evidence that the female brain naturally evolved into something different than what a female used to be . Humans will adapt to any social paradox including females. It's part of our survival just as it is a male's.

IMO, this thread is making it sound as if females are a subspecies of humans.

As for population control, they're may be much evidence linked to that such as birth control but IMO, it's probably better since most well-to do cultures are vulnerable to over-population. This is partly due to our advancements in science and technology that are used in saving lives plus we have increased live expectancy. The elderly are living much longer due to cures and treatments for age related ailments such as strokes, calcium deficiency, heart attacks, and so on. People born with certain conditions that were once fatal can now be treated as well.

There are many factors regarding over population and underpopulation. I see lack of femenism having that much control over population since there are other factors to consider.

to me the whole theory about feminism being a form of population control is (no offence OP) quite silly.

you might as well have come up with something like "African people spread HIV because they subconsciously want to control their overgrown population"...

^No joke and IMO, if people were to turn a subject like this into a racial topic reactions would be a lot more different in this thread.

This topic has turned into a joke..... as if females shouldn't think for themselves or have an opinion and usually I'm good at sarcasms.

Even if Saint Paul says so?


well, I believe it would be silly to say the population control to be a feminist conspiracy, but, feminism could have played a small role into population control, although that is a speculation from my part, I mean, the issue is that women don't have to get married if they don't want to, they don't have to have kids if they don't want to, the increase of independent women may have a bit to do with it, however, even if that is so, I don't see nothing wrong with population control, anyway, rather a good thing, or am I missing something?

^No in fact that might be a good thing in many industrialized countries.